Well, have you ever thought about what it can do to you, what it can cause?
Here are some reasons it should be illegal to smoke.

- 90% of lung cancers and the more number of women who die annually from lung cancer than breast cancer
- More than 80% of deaths from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease
- It increases the risk of death for men and women
- Increased risk of coronary heart disease by 2 to 4 times
- Increased risk of stroke by 2 to 3 times
- Increased risk of lung cancer for men by 25 times
- Increased risk of lung cancer for women by 25.7 times
- Greater risk of cardiovascular disease
- Greater risk of respiratory disease

That's how bad it is for the people that choose to smoke.
And if smoking is illegal, then people won't have to go through the diseases and deaths.

We all know that smoking is bad. That's not the argument, the argument is should it be banned. If people know that smoking could kill them, then shouldn't they be allowed to make it. And if these people are stupid enough to do it they should face the consequences.

Well, should we just let them do whatever they want and have people keep dying? Or should we just make it illegal and the instantly need to stop. That will save millions of peoples lives. And there family might even be happy that they need to quit. Imagine all the people in the hospital suffering by their stupid chooses. I say we should make them stop. Plus; it will be better for our environment, how? Because all the people who smoke through the cigarettes on the ground. If we make it illegal, that would stop too.

I get that you have the best intentions, but what you are advocating is pretty totalitarian. People will make choices like these regardless of what you say. Tobacco is already the 10th largest product on the black market, so the only thing banning will do is start another war on drugs (which is a spectacular failure in its own right). Why not help them get off it, and if they don't leave them alone. It doesn't affect you.

4 points to Pro (Conduct, Arguments). Reasons for voting decision: Pro brought up some concerns good enough to warrant banning. Con argues that we should protect smokers from infringement of rights, then says that smokers deserve to suffer and die? I consider that a contradiction. Con made new arguments in the last round that were better, but I can't count those because Pro didn't have a chance to respond. That is also why I deducted point for conduct.

[*Reason for removal*] (1) Arguments are insufficiently explained. The voter has to specifically assess arguments made by both sides. He does so for Con, but not for Pro. (2) Conduct is insufficiently explained. The voter is required to do more than point to last round arguments for this, especially since he's already disregarding them. The debaters either had to be insulting or forfeit to warrant this.
************************************************************************

I think people should not smoke because like Caleb said it makes you sick. But, this is your choice if you want to waste your life in a prison cell because you got caught smoking weed fine. But, remember this was your choice.

Smoking is a choice, and almost everyone who starts smoking understands the risks. To remove that choice is to stifle freedom. Perhaps we should make it illegal to consume any food that isn't absolutely needed by the body. We should outlaw cars and just switch to a trolley system in all cities as cars can lead to death and injury. We should take all children from their parents at birth and raise them in government run facilities, as to decrease the chance of abuse of a physical, sexual, or emotional nature. This would also allow humans to maintain a healthy mental state as they wouldn't have to deal with their "loved ones" dying, as they wouldn't have any.

Reasons for voting decision: pro argues that banning smoking would force smokers to stop, but con shows that to be false with the black market argument, so pro's argument is negated. Con's argument that people should do what they want is a reason to be against the ban, and it wasn't completly refuted, so Con has an argument standing and Pro doesn't.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.